Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) and Work Based Assessments (WBAs) are the mainstays of assessing clinical competency in health professions' education. Underpinned by the extrapolation inference in Kane's Validity Framework, the purpose of this study is to determine whether OSCEs translate to real life performance by comparing students' OSCE performance to their performance in real-life (as a WBA) using the same clinical scenario, and to understand factors that affect students' performance. A sequential explanatory mixed methods approach where a grade comparison between students' performance in their OSCE and WBA was performed. Students were third year pharmacy undergraduates on placement at a community pharmacy in 2022. The WBA was conducted by a simulated patient, unbeknownst to students and indistinguishable from a genuine patient, visiting the pharmacy asking for health advice. The simulated patient was referred to as a 'mystery shopper' and the process to 'mystery shopping' in this manuscript. Community pharmacy is an ideal setting for real-time observation and mystery shopping as staff can be accessed without appointment. The students' provision of care and clinical knowledge was assessed by the mystery shopper using the same clinical checklist the student was assessed from in the OSCE. Students who had the WBA conducted were then invited to participate in semi-structured interviews to discuss their experiences in both settings. Overall, 92 mystery shopper (WBA) visits with students were conducted and 36 follow-up interviews were completed. The median WBA score was 41.7% [IQR 28.3] and significantly lower compared to the OSCE score 80.9% [IQR 19.0] in all participants (p < 0.001). Interviews revealed students knew they did not perform as well in the WBA compared to their OSCE, but reflected that they still need OSCEs to prepare them to manage real-life patients. Many students related their performance to how they perceived their role in OSCEs versus WBAs, and that OSCEs allowed them more autonomy to manage the patient as opposed to an unfamiliar workplace. As suggested by the activity theory, the performance of the student can be driven by their motivation which differed in the two contexts.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to improve healthcare outcomes by facilitating early diagnosis, reducing the medical administrative burden, aiding drug development, personalising medical and oncological management, monitoring healthcare parameters on an individual basis, and allowing clinicians to spend more time with their patients. In the post-pandemic world where there is a drive for efficient delivery of healthcare and manage long waiting times for patients to access care, AI has an important role in supporting clinicians and healthcare systems to streamline the care pathways and provide timely and high-quality care for the patients. Despite AI technologies being used in healthcare for some decades, and all the theoretical potential of AI, the uptake in healthcare has been uneven and slower than anticipated and there remain a number of barriers, both overt and covert, which have limited its incorporation. This literature review highlighted barriers in six key areas: ethical, technological, liability and regulatory, workforce, social, and patient safety barriers. Defining and understanding the barriers preventing the acceptance and implementation of AI in the setting of healthcare will enable clinical staff and healthcare leaders to overcome the identified hurdles and incorporate AI technologies for the benefit of patients and clinical staff.

Objective: Identify prevalence of self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise following hospitalisation for COVID-19. Design: Multicentre prospective observational cohort study using questionnaire data at visit 1 (2-7 months post discharge) and visit 2 (10-14 months post discharge) from hospitalised patients in the UK. Lasso logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify associations. Setting: 64 UK acute hospital Trusts. Participants: Adults aged >18 years, discharged from an admissions unit or ward at a UK hospital with COVID-19. Main outcome measures: Self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise. Results: Compromised swallowing post intensive care unit (post-ICU) admission was reported in 20% (188/955); 60% with swallow problems received invasive mechanical ventilation and were more likely to have undergone proning (p=0.039). Voice problems were reported in 34% (319/946) post-ICU admission who were more likely to have received invasive (p<0.001) or non-invasive ventilation (p=0.001) and to have been proned (p<0.001). Communication compromise was reported in 23% (527/2275) univariable analysis identified associations with younger age (p<0.001), female sex (p<0.001), social deprivation (p<0.001) and being a healthcare worker (p=0.010). Cognitive issues were reported by 70% (1598/2275), consistent at both visits, at visit 1 respondents were more likely to have higher baseline comorbidities and at visit 2 were associated with greater social deprivation (p<0.001). Conclusion: Swallow, communication, voice and cognitive problems were prevalent post hospitalisation for COVID-19, alongside whole system compromise including reduced mobility and overall health scores. Research and testing of rehabilitation interventions are required at pace to explore these issues.

Aim: We reflect on our experiences of coproducing a redesigned, COVID-safe priority-setting activity at a time of shifting priorities and upheaval to gain insight into good practice. Method: The project team documented the experience of adapting to COVID-19 through the reflective project evaluation. We reflect on how COVID disrupted coproduction through radically shifting personal and professional priorities and the implications for good practice. Results: Our experiences highlighted the role of agility, management capacity, social capital and power in coproduction. Conclusions: COVID-19 disrupted and enabled coproduction, compounding tensions and serving as the basis to transcend them. The pandemic created new demands on institutions that initially prompted withdrawal to established power, and team members which redefined them in relation to each other. Shifting priorities and demands forced team members into new, and out of former, roles coming into conflict with enduring power dynamics articulating constructs of expertise and authority in the institutional structure. We consider how the tensions found expression: as governance and human resource concerns, problems with authorizing payments, challenges in institutionally accommodating community researchers and the exclusion of some from participation.